| Literature DB >> 35498832 |
Xingxing Fang1,2,3, Jiuxu Deng4,3, Wei Zhang1,3, Haichang Guo2, Fei Yu1,3, Feng Rao4,3, Qicheng Li1,3, Peixun Zhang1,3, Shulin Bai2, Baoguo Jiang1,4,3.
Abstract
Despite advances in surgical techniques, functional recovery following epineurial neurorrhaphy of transected peripheral nerves often remains quite unsatisfactory. Small gap tubulisation is a promising approach that has shown potential to traditional epineurial neurorrhaphy in the treatment of peripheral nerve injury. Thus, the goal of this study is to evaluate sciatic nerve regeneration after nerve transection, followed by small gap tubulization using a reduced graphene oxide-based conductive conduit. In vitro, the electrically conductive conduit could promote Schwann cell proliferation through PI3K/Akt signaling pathway activation. In vivo, the results of electrophysiological and walking track analysis suggest that the electrically conductive conduit could promote sensory and motor nerve regeneration and functional recovery, which is based on the mechanisms of selective regeneration and multiple-bud regeneration. These promising results illustrate electrically conductive conduit small gap tubulization as an alternative approach for transected peripheral nerve repair. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 35498832 PMCID: PMC9053044 DOI: 10.1039/d0ra02143a
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 4.036
Fig. 1Schematic of conductive conduit small gap tubulization methods. The gap between the nerve stumps is 2 mm.
Fig. 2(A) Image of conductive nerve conduits (rGO: 0.25 wt%). (B) Morphological photographs of conductive nerve conduits (rGO: 0.25 wt%). Scale bar = 50 μm. (C) is a magnified (B) image, white arrows indicate the rGO. Scale bar = 10 μm.
Fig. 3Western blot analysis of ERK, p-ERK, Akt, and p-Akt expression after RSC96 co-cultures with scaffolds.
Fig. 4Surgical implantation. (A1/2–D1/2) Intraoperative images of the Control group (A1/2), A-rGO group (B1/2), B-rGO group (C1/2), and TEN group (D1/2). White arrows indicate the end-to-end suture site.
Fig. 5Electrophysiology and walking track analysis. (A–D) Footprints and footfall patterns of Control group, A-rGO group, B-rGO group, and TEN group after 12 weeks of implantation, respectively. #P < 0.05. Error bar = s.e.m. (E and F) CMAP amplitudes and area of Control group, A-rGO group, B-rGO group, and TEN group. *P < 0.05 between proximal and distal of the sciatic nerve. **P < 0.05 between Control group and A-rGO group. &P < 0.05 between Control group and B-rGO group. #P < 0.05 between TEN group and other groups. Error bar = s.e.m. (G) Motor nerve conduction velocities of Control group, A-rGO group, B-rGO group, and TEN group. *P < 0.05, Error bar = s.e.m.
Fig. 6Morphological photographs of muscles and wet muscles ratio. Morphological images of Control group (A), A-rGO group (B), B-rGO group (C) and TEN group (D), experimental side's tibialis anterior muscles (T+), contralateral side's tibialis anterior muscles (T), experimental side's gastrocnemius muscles (G+), contralateral side's gastrocnemius muscles (G). (E) and (F) The tibialis anterior muscles ratio and gastrocnemius muscle ratio. *P < 0.05. Error bar = s.e.m.